Imperfectly Known or Socially Constructed? What is Truth ...
Transcript of Imperfectly Known or Socially Constructed? What is Truth ...
Seattle Pacific UniversityDigital Commons @ SPU
SPU Works
January 27th, 2017
Imperfectly Known or Socially Constructed? Whatis Truth Again?Scott C. CampanarioSeattle Pacific University
Paul R. YostSeattle Pacific University
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.spu.edu/works
Part of the Theory and Philosophy Commons
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ SPU. It has been accepted for inclusion in SPU Works by an authorizedadministrator of Digital Commons @ SPU.
Recommended CitationCampanario, Scott C. and Yost, Paul R., "Imperfectly Known or Socially Constructed? What is Truth Again?" (2017). SPU Works. 100.https://digitalcommons.spu.edu/works/100
Running head: IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 1
Imperfectly Known or Socially Constructed? What is Truth Again?
Scott C. Campanario and Paul R. Yost
Seattle Pacific University
Author Note
Scott C. Campanario, Doctoral Student, Department of Industrial-Organizational
Psychology, Seattle Pacific University.
Paul R. Yost, Associate Professor, Department of Industrial-Organizational Psychology,
Seattle Pacific University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Scott C. Campanario,
Department of Industrial-Organizational Psychology, Seattle Pacific University, 3307 3rd Ave W,
Seattle, WA 98119. Contact: [email protected].
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 2
Abstract
Contemporary psychology is once again at an inflection point with regard to its philosophical
foundation. In this paper, we evaluate two prominent philosophies of science within the field of
psychology—post-positivism and social constructionism—that are logically incompatible but
often treated as equally valid by theorists, researchers, and practitioners. We discuss what each
philosophy of science offers in terms of ontology, epistemology, and pragmatic justifications
using the structure of a proposed argument, counterargument, and rebuttal. From this evaluation,
we contend that post-positivism is a logically preferable philosophy of science for both the
progress of collective knowledge and the sustainability of psychology as a science and therefore
should guide future theory and research. We conclude by exploring implications for psychology
including ways that social constructionist critiques can be employed to improve post-positivist
approaches to psychology.
Keywords: psychology, post-positivism, social constructionism, philosophy of science,
correspondence theory, coherence theory, pragmatism, epistemology, ontology
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 3
Imperfectly Known or Socially Constructed? What is Truth Again?
How does one know if a claim is true? This question is at the heart of centuries of debate
and discussion. Is truth an objective reality to be discovered? Or, is it a socially constructed
conclusion? More specifically, is the scientific approach used in psychology a socially
constructed value system? Or, are there principles, observations, and rational arguments dictating
psychology’s systematic approach to science? This debate has become all the more salient with
critiques in recent years questioning whether psychology should even be considered a science at
all (Berezow, 2012: Jogalekar, 2013).
This, of course, is not a new debate; it has played a central role throughout psychology’s
history, and the answer has significant implications for the future of psychology (Feist &
Gorman, 2013; Pilgrim, 2013). Theorists, researchers, and practitioners in the field must give
sufficient consideration to the basis for their work and claims. As such, in this paper, we will
argue for the merits of post-positivism and its utilization of the correspondence theory of truth, as
opposed to its alternative, social constructionism and the postmodern thought that characterizes a
dominant worldview in many cultures today (Inglehart, 1997). Ultimately, we will conclude that
the tenets of post-positivism are logically preferable to social constructionism for the future of
psychology. That is, there is an objective reality that can be known, albeit imperfectly, by relying
on standards for empirically testing the validity of claims against observed data. Moreover, we
suggest that social constructionism offers an internally inconsistent philosophy (i.e., the claim
that “truth does not exist or cannot be known” is itself a truth claim). In contrast, it will be argued
that a post-positivist approach allows for the accumulation of knowledge and the ability to
predict future as yet undiscovered principles and relationships.
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 4
In the following sections, the terms necessary for presenting our argument will be
defined. Subsequent sections will then present our arguments in three steps. First, the initial
arguments in support of post-positivism and its use of correspondence theory will be presented.
Second, a number of counterarguments both critiquing post-positivism and supporting social
constructionism will be presented. Third, rebuttals to these counterarguments will be presented.
Following these arguments, specific implications for how psychologists can maintain integrity to
the principles of post-positivism while addressing critiques and concerns raised by social
constructionists will be discussed.
Philosophical Foundations
To begin, a clear definition of the differences between post-positivist and social
constructionist philosophies must be established. Post-positivism in this paper is defined as the
view that there is one reality, but that it is “only imperfectly and probabilistically
apprehensible… [such that] findings are probably true” (Guba & Lincoln, 2005, p. 193). Social
constructionism, contrastingly, is a relativist position characterized by rejecting that “either
reality or validity are absolutist…; rather, they are derived from community consensus regarding
what is ‘real,’ what is useful, and what has meaning” (Guba & Lincoln, 2005, p. 197; Schwandt,
2000). The two philosophies primarily differ with regard to epistemology (i.e., the study of
knowledge) and ontology (i.e., the study of reality). Specifically, the two paradigms take
alternative stances on how to define reality and the extent to which humanity is capable of
knowing reality (Ponterotto, 2005).
Positivists and post-positivists approach psychology as an empirical science where truth
can be discovered, whereas social constructionists approach psychology from a
phenomenological or postmodern perspective where truth does not exist absolutely, but can only
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 5
be understood as social construction local to a specific context (Feist & Gorman, 2013; Gergen,
2001). To elaborate, the post-positivist approach accepts the ability of each individual to know
(albeit imperfectly) the world via observations and subsequently convey this knowledge through
the use of language; social constructionists, however, would argue that the language itself is
socially constructed and, therefore, it bears the real truth or meaning for any given claim
(Hansen, 2004).
Historical Roots
Psychology as a science has its philosophical roots in the modernist perspective of
positivism (Çakir, 2012). Considered to be a perspective that came to (and some say still does)
dominate scientific pursuits (Guo, 2015; Hunt, 1994; Ponterotto, 2005), this paradigm posits that
the truth of a claim relies on the claim being either logical or verifiable through an empirical
method (Cacioppo, Semin, & Berntson, 2004; Meyers, 1975). In other words, claims must either
hold up logically or be verified with empirical data, and one’s observations of the world can be
valid, objective conclusions (Alevesson & Sköldberg, 2010; Hansen, 2004). That is, the values,
biases, culture, experiences, language, and all nonobjective aspects of the researcher should bear
as little influence as possible on the collection of data and the post hoc formulation of theory.
Collected data can be relied upon as objective representations of reality such that values and
human fallibility are minimized. Thus, for the positivist, there is an objective and knowable truth
that can be verified via either logical or empirical demonstrations, both of which serve as
objective ways of knowing reality (Ponterotto, 2005).
The perspective of positivism, however, would subsequently endure two distinctions that
gave birth to the philosophy of post-positivism (Ponterotto, 2005). First, whereas the positivist
emphasizes the verification of claims as the way to demonstrate truth, the post-positivist
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 6
perspective places greater emphasis on the notion of falsifiability in demonstrating truth (Çakir,
2012; Ponterotto, 2005). To elaborate, according to Popper (1959), a claim can only be
scientifically meaningful if there is an observation that could possibly make it false. For
example, the claim that “all doves are white” can be easily falsified by simply providing one
nonwhite dove. A non-falsifiable claim, however, is one for which there exists no possible
observation that could make it false. For example, the claim that an omnipotent, omnipresent,
and omniscient God exists is a non-falsifiable claim because there is no possible observation that
prevents such a deity from possibly existing. By definition, it could never be shown as false.
Thus, according to Popper (1959), in order for a claim to bear any scientific meaning, it must be
able to be falsified, and claims that cannot be falsified have no meaningful place in science.
The second aspect of positivism that was eventually called into question is the belief that
human beings are capable of objective knowledge (Ponterotto, 2005). Specifically, Kuhn (1970)
suggests that science occurs in a paradigm or worldview that influences which research questions
are asked, how the data is interpreted, and what conclusions are drawn. In The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions, he asserts that “the existence of the paradigm sets the problem to be
solved… [and] is implicated directly in the design of apparatus able to solve the problem” (p.
27). Embracing and building on this perspective, Gergen (1973) argued that psychological
findings and theories throughout history ultimately reflect the latent values of society and
culture. These critiques and concerns paved the way for a polar contrast to both positivism and
post-positivism: postmodernism.
One of the central tenets of postmodernism is a denial of objectivity in human knowledge
(Guba & Lincoln, 2005). Postmodernists claim that all human knowledge is influenced by a
number of factors specific to the individual and his or her community (e.g., values, biases,
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 7
culture, language, etc.). Thus, all knowledge is ultimately “a byproduct of communal
construction,” and therefore lacking in objectivity (Alevesson & Sköldberg, 2010; Gergen, 2001,
p. 806). Within this view, and most relevant to this paper, is the philosophy of science known as
social constructionism, which follows the postmodernist belief of human knowledge being
nonobjective and communally constructed (Hansen, 2004).
From this perspective, there is no justification for believing in an apprehensible, objective
reality because there is no possible way to objectively and empirically know whether or not this
reality exists (Schwandt, 2000)—or to objectively and empirically know anything! Thus, social
constructionists would conclude that there is not one objective reality, but rather several equally
valid realities (Guba & Lincoln, 2005; Ponterotto, 2005). To better understand this perspective,
consider the idea that, if everyone is special, then by definition no one is special. The same
thought process underlies social constructionism. If every belief is nonobjective, then by
definition no belief is nonobjective, meaning that all beliefs are equal insofar as they all bear
equal degrees of objectivity; they represent equally valid realities.
Many have discussed the possible deleterious consequences on scientific progress, human
knowledge, and societal institutions if the scientific community were to embrace a philosophy
that “jettison[s] the idea of aiming at ‘the truth’” (Haig & Borsboom, 2012, p. 273; Locke, 2002).
Nevertheless, social constructionism begins with a compelling premise: no human is truly
objective, regardless of the tendency to believe otherwise (Pronin, Gilovich, & Ross, 2004).
However, this begs several questions. Is there an alternative way to acknowledge the
imperfection of human knowledge without moving to a logical extreme of several equally valid
(and thus equally invalid) realities? Moreover, can this be done while still remaining accountable
to empirical standards for science? For the post-positivist, the answer is yes. According to the
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 8
post-positivist, social constructionism is not the only solution to the concern over a lack of
objectivity in human knowledge. Rather, post-positivism is a somewhat modified form of
positivism that embraces the two distinctions of (1) an emphasis on falsifiability and (2) a
humble acknowledgment of human fallibility (Ponterotto, 2005).
In many ways, social constructionism and post-positivism share a common ground in the
way that each philosophy denies the positivist’s belief in the objectivity of human knowledge
(Jost & Kruglanski, 2002). Yet, from there, social constructionists go on to conclude that no
objective truth exists (Guba & Lincoln, 2005). In contrast, post-positivists conclude that an
objective reality does exist but human’s understanding of it will always be imperfect.
Correspondence Theory
If post-positivists say that there is an external, objective reality that can only partially be
known, the challenge becomes establishing a theoretical framework that allows one to assess the
extent to which claims match this external reality. This is the correspondence theory of truth.
From this perspective, a claim is valid insofar as it corresponds to observations of the world
(Haig & Borsboom, 2012; Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). Thus, there must be standards and
procedures for establishing the validity of these observations (Jost & Kruglanski, 2002). For the
post-positivist, this theory of truth is crucial because it becomes the maxim by which one could
theoretically come to know, albeit imperfectly, objective reality. In other words, the post-
positivist’s goal of knowing truth relies on a belief that the truth can be found in that which
corresponds to observations of the world.
This establishes the framework for the boundaries of the current debate. However, it
doesn’t capture the depth of arguments and counter-arguments that can be raised by adherents of
social constructionism and post-positivism. The following section will include several of these
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 9
arguments, counterarguments, and rebuttals to evaluate the assertion that post-positivism and its
reliance on correspondence theory brings one closer to objective truth than social
constructionism.
The Convictions of a Post-Positivist
To begin, a series of claims will argue that psychology is best served when built on a
post-positivist foundation. Three of the central arguments are presented below that reflect the
ontology, epistemology, and pragmatic justifications for the post-positivist position.
Argument #1: There is an Objective Truth, Regardless of Us Knowing It
When deconstructing the post-positivist perspective, there is an ontological claim being
made that there is an objective reality (Hansen, 2004). Of course, to the social constructionist and
most postmodernists, this assumption is just that—an assumption. In contrast, social
constructionists would posit that nothing is objective because all knowledge is filtered through a
subjective lens (Gergen, 2001; Guba & Lincoln, 2005). However, even if it is only an
assumption, and even if all are truths are imperfect because they are filtered through a subjective
lens, the post-positivist assumption that an objective truth exists may hold as a logically valid
argument, albeit an a priori one. To elaborate, first consider the social constructionist argument:
all truth and knowledge is filtered through language, culture, biases, etc.; therefore, there is no
justification for concluding that an objective truth exists. Yet, even if reality is filtered through
the lens of a human mind, this would imply that reality was objective prior to the filter, meaning
that there is an objective reality in existence. Perhaps then, it is ill-advised to abandon belief in
an objective reality simply because the interpretation and expression of it is subjective. Locke
(2002) articulates this point with much zest:
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 10
“The objective pursuit of knowledge is to be replaced by ‘language games’… because,
the postmodernists claim, language is not a reflection of one’s inner ideas about the world
but something that itself constructs reality. How language gets this magical power is
never discussed” (Locke, 2002, p. 458).
The post-positivist argues that, even with the subjectivity of human interpretation, one
can still conclude that some form of objective reality exists prior to its interpretation. The next
concern, then, is how one mitigates the imperfection of this interpretive process.
Argument #2: Imperfect Knowledge is not Constructed Knowledge
For the social constructionist, the biases that make objective knowledge impossible
(Ackerman et al., 2006; Ostrom & Sedikides, 1992; Robins et al., 1996) provide support for the
idea that all claims should be considered as equally imperfect and, therefore, equally valid
(Gergen, 2001). In other words, imperfect knowledge essentially equates to constructed, equally
valid knowledge. On the other hand, post-positivists argue that, even if human knowledge falls
short of perfect objectivity, there are criteria for belief that can be used to test whether some
claims correspond to reality more so than others (Haig & Borsboom, 2012). These criteria allow
for comparisons between claims so as to assess the degree of imperfection in the claim. In other
words, human observations and scientific pursuits being imperfect does not mean that all claims
are therefore constructed and equally valid. Rather, the correspondence theory of truth allows
one to assess the degree to which a given claim corresponds to observations of the world, thereby
demonstrating an amount of validity that may be more or less than that of other claims.
Whereas post-positivism relies on this criteria of correspondence, postmodern thought
and other constructionist perspectives are largely driven by either relativist or relative pragmatic
conceptions of truth, meaning that truth is not absolute but rather unique to the context and needs
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 11
of each individual (Schmitt, 1995). Specifically, relativism denies the existence of objective
truths, and pragmatism bases the truth of a claim on the degree to which it is useful to believe in
said claim, regardless of whether or not it matches empirical observations. By claiming
correspondence theory as the optimal theory of truth, however, post-positivists utilize systematic
observations of the world as the basis for assessing the validity of claims, allowing one to
differentiate the levels of imperfection between claims.
Argument #3: Post-Positivism Helps the Constructionist, Psychology, and Society at Large
So long as there is a silver lining to a given perspective, there is a pragmatic argument to
be exploited. Here, three specific pragmatic benefits of post-positivism will be discussed. First,
the benefit of post-positivism for the social constructionist is the ability of this approach to
resolve concerns over oppressed voices. To elaborate, social constructionists often argue that
feminist, racial minority, Marxist, and other non-majority voices are commonly suppressed,
ignored, or actively censored within a post-positivist model (Gergen, 2001). Yet, while these
individuals typically go on to espouse the equality of these voices, they fail to offer any
normative guidance for identifying the predictable, systemic influences that repress minority
voices, nor do they provide evidence of the effectiveness of strategies for ensuring their
inclusion. In fact, under a constructionist worldview, these research-based recommendations
could only be considered as local, ideographic perspectives. Contrastingly, the empirical
processes in post-positivism allow one to study, understand, and accurately predict the systematic
biases within a group or culture (Hogg, 2010), the effectiveness of interventions to correct such
biases (Crano & Seyranian, 2009), and the biases within the observers themselves (Robins,
Spranca, & Mendelsohn, 1996).
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 12
A second benefit of post-positivism extends to psychology as a whole. Specifically, the
continuous pursuit of truth from a post-positivist perspective enables one to generate working
models and theories of phenomena that can subsequently be tested. These models of the world
can be amended and abridged over time to more adequately represent the collective observations
of the world. Moreover, these models can also be used to apply scientific findings to practical
settings, creating avenues for future research and evaluation. Going back to the example of non-
majority voices, a post-positivist approach would allow for robust and generalizable models to
address the questions of which voices are ignored; which processes promote certain voices over
others; and which process effectively establish egalitarian social systems? Overall, the ultimate
trend of this process is the progress of knowledge as opposed to the constructionist trend that
may inadvertently promote stagnation by way of accepting anything as valid; this stagnation
represents “the dead end of philosophy” that Locke (2002, p. 458) and others (e.g., Sokal &
Bricmont, 1999) claim is the ultimate conclusion of postmodernism.
One final benefit of post-positivism is its implication for society at large. Specifically,
there may be potential deleterious effects of social constructionism on the pursuit of establishing
a moral or good society. For example, Locke (2002) notes that the logical end of social
constructionism is that no claim is more or less true than another, meaning that all claims are
equal. Within this view, there is no meaningful difference between what many consider to be
morally right and wrong; morality is unique to the individual. Thus, there would be no moral
justification for penalizing, punishing, or even personally judging the behaviors of criminals,
terrorists, etc. (Talbott, 2005). If taken seriously, the implication of such a conclusion is the
abandonment of the pursuit of a good society as all societies, regardless of whether they value
equality, justice, peace, etc., would be considered equal. Post-positivism, on the other hand,
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 13
allows for the study and rational conversation of morality and good societies at a level beyond
relativism. In this paradigm, universal or logically derived ethical maxims can be promoted as a
standard for assessing the goodness of a society, which can self-correct with time as knowledge
accumulates (Talbott, 2005).
Critiques to an Overly-Convicted Perspective
Nevertheless, for each of the aforementioned arguments regarding ontology,
epistemology, and pragmatic justifications, there are a number of compelling counterarguments.
Counterargument #1: Where is the Observed Proof of External, Objective Reality?
In regards to the ontological argument that an objective reality exists via one’s
perceptions, one noteworthy counterargument comes from Descartes (1641/1993). Tailoring
Descartes’s (1641/1993) argument to this conversation, even if post-positivists accept the
imperfection of human knowledge, they still assume that one’s observations reflect something
external to the human mind. In other words, there is an assumption that everything perceived is
external prior to its perception and interpretation. However, as Descartes (1641/1993) suggested
in his Meditations on First Philosophy, such an assumption would be ill-advised because there
are times when one’s senses can be deceitful, as is the case with any optical illusion. This
argument can be extended even further to the thought experiment that life could simply be a
realistic dream; one’s mind could be connected to an advanced simulation or matrix machine; or
one could have been drugged with something so potent that all perceptions are successfully
deceiving. Overall, it is entirely possible that one’s senses are always deceitful, thereby
preventing one from ever fully believing in objective reality.
Furthermore, it would be hypocritical for a post-positivist to believe in the existence of a
purely objective reality because this claim is not empirically testable. To elaborate, even though
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 14
empirical post-positivists acknowledge the fallibility of human knowledge, they nonetheless
conclude that there is still objective reality that can be known imperfectly through empirical
methods (Ponterotto, 2005). Yet, the social constructionist would argue that these empirical
methods cannot demonstrate the superiority of one philosophical claim about reality over another
because there is no way to empirically test reality in a non-objective manner. Moreover, these
empirical methods cannot truly demonstrate the objectivity of any claim considering that any
empirical test of said claim would be interpreted by a non-objective human. Thus, the argument
that an objective reality exists is not a testable claim, essentially making it a faith-based belief
that is no more or less valid than any other perspective.
Counterargument #2: Imperfect is Functionally Equivalent to Constructed
The inability to empirically demonstrate objectivity poses a considerable flaw to the
epistemological position of post-positivism in that it prevents one from making assessments of
the amount of objectivity that a given claim may have. In other words, if a claim is based on
imperfect knowledge, how is one to say that the claim is only mildly imperfect as opposed to
being 100% imperfect (i.e., not true at all)? Likewise, how can one say that one imperfect claim
is more or less true than another imperfect claim? Some may retort that the tactic for evading this
critique is to rely on a consensus amongst the claims of several observers or experts so as to
demonstrate the notion of interrater reliability (Shadish et al., 2002).
However, even if there are multiple people making observations, how can one know the
objectivity of the consensus taken from the group? The conclusion of a group, even with high
interrater reliability, does not necessarily demonstrate objectivity or validity, but rather simply
agreement between several imperfect claims. Consider, for example, some of the more infamous
instances of a consensus or agreement amongst experts that resulted in events or decisions that
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 15
many would now consider to be invalid in a number of ways (e.g., consensus amongst experts in
Nazi Germany that the Jewish population was biologically inferior, and belief in U.S. culture for
many years that African Americans and women did not deserve the same rights as white males).
Consensus, which is the mark of high interrater reliability, does not necessarily suggest inherent
rightness, validity, or truth. Thus, the objectivity of a claim may still be unattainable even with
high interrater reliability, thereby posing the concern that the objectivity of all claims may be
unattainable and, for all functional purposes, equal.
Counterargument #3: Pragmatic Arguments Go Both Ways
There are several potentially harmful consequences of post-positivism. Gergen (2001)
presents a helpful discussion illustrating these consequences. First, if one accepts that all science
is approached from certain established paradigms (Kuhn, 1970), as both the empirical post-
positivist and social constructionist do (Jost & Kruglanski, 2002), then “the individual scientist is
deemed rational only if he or she adopts the codes of discourse common to his or her particular
community of science” (Gergen, 2001, p. 805). Thus, the post-positivist accepts validity in a
claim only if it endures the standards and protocols that have been established in that community.
This presents several harmful consequences because this system essentially oppresses and
marginalizes groups who are not represented well in the community establishing these rigorous
standards. This results in unheard voices from those who have not historically been represented
in scientific communities—more often than not, those who do not fit the Caucasian, male
stereotype. These critiques can be found elsewhere as well (see Eagly & Riger [2014] for a
review of feminist critiques of positivism).
Moreover, one could extend the pragmatic argument against post-positivism even further
to say that the strict adherence to previously constructed standards might have harmful
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 16
consequences in regards to research and publishing. To elaborate, too strict of scientific norms
and values may contribute to a bias against replication studies (Neuliep & Crandall, 1990, 1993);
a bias against publishing negative (i.e., non-significant) results, thereby increasing the risk of
type I error in knowledge (Cortina & Folger, 1998; Greenwald 1975); and the pressure that these
biases place on researchers to commit questionable research practices (QRPs; John,
Loewenstein, & Prelec, 2012; Stroebe, Postmes, & Spears, 2012).
The Post-Positivist Rebuttal
The criticisms of post-positivism are compelling. The temptation is to land somewhere in
the middle (e.g., sometimes psychology should use a post-positivist approach, sometimes a social
constructionist approach). The problem, of course, is that the two philosophical paradigms are
logically incompatible, especially when focusing on ontology and epistemology. Either there is
an objective reality that we can imperfectly know or there is not. This, of course, is not a
problem for the social constructionist who believes that contradictory claims can coexist, so long
as the claims are not generalizable beyond the specific context at hand. However, a hypocrisy of
this perspective emerges when the social constructionist relies on research that a certain cancer
treatment will be more effective than another; on the aerodynamics of airplane flight; or that
certain practices are more effective at reducing the spread of HIV/AIDs than others. Each of
these examples rely on research aimed at providing robust, generalizable claims based on the
existence of an objective reality. As most post-positivists and social constructionists alike
commonly rely on this research every day, further deliberation about ontology, epistemology,
and pragmatic justifications is warranted. With this in mind, the following sections will consider
the post-positivists’ rebuttals to each of the aforementioned counterarguments.
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 17
Rebuttal #1: Cogito Ergo Sum—an Age-Old Justification for Objective Reality
As noted previously, Descartes’s (1641/1993) arguments suggest that one’s senses are not
a trustworthy representation of an external, objective reality because they could always be
wrong. Taken to its logical extreme, this can lead one to believe that there is no justifiable reason
to believe in an external, objective reality at all. However, the issue with Descartes’s (1641/1993)
claim is that it is not falsifiable; there is no way for anyone to disprove it. Consider a similar
example: there is no way to empirically measure and disprove the existence of God, but that is
hardly a decent reason to believe in God’s existence. Likewise, there is no way to empirically
measure and disprove that one’s senses are not always deceitful, but this is hardly a decent
argument for no longer trusting one’s senses. Moreover, untrustworthy senses do not ipso facto
prove that everything is thereby relative and that objective reality does not exist. In fact, the so-
called “hard sciences” would suggest just the opposite. Objective reality is true whether people
believe it or not; it is independent of social consensus at any given point in time (Sokal &
Bricmont, 1999).
Additionally, Descartes (1647/1983) would later suggest that even if one cannot disprove
sense deception arguments, one can still logically deduce that something objectively true has to
exist. His well-known conclusion of this argument, cogito ergo sum, translates to the sentiment
of, “I think, therefore, I am.” This adage suggests that something objective has to exist because,
without it, one would not be capable of thinking in the first place. To elaborate, even if one’s
senses are deceiving, he or she can at least conclude that the senses exist; even if everything one
observes is occurring within his or her head, it can at least be concluded that the head exists;
even if one’s mind is connected to a simulation machine, one can at least conclude that the
simulation machine exists; even if one is experiencing an extremely lucid drug effect, one can at
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 18
least conclude that the drug exists; and so on and so forth. Thus, the mere state of one thinking is
enough proof of the objective existence of at least one thing, even if one’s interpretation of it is
imperfect.
Rebuttal #2: Imperfection can be Mitigated, but There is No Limit to Constructed Truths
With regard to epistemology, post-positivism acknowledges that the scientific process is
not without limits or values. However, the post-positivist has adopted practices and criteria via
correspondence theory that are self-reflexive and self-correcting. That is, the standards that post-
positivists embrace (e.g., that one’s predictions must correspond to observations in a reliable
manner) can mitigate the imperfection of claims. Moreover, in a post-positivist research
paradigm, these claims can be falsified through empirical testing (Popper, 1959). Predictions can
be made and then tested to determine if the results are consistent. In contrast, in social
constructionism—a perspective in which all truths are equal—there is no method for falsifying
claims because all claims are unique to the individual, meaning that there is no limit to what can
be true. All predictions and all outcomes are equally valid because there is no standard to
determine what is or is not correct. Thus, while values influence the pursuit of truth in any
philosophy of science, an imperfect truth garnered from post-positivist research bears more
“trueness” than a socially constructed truth because it is both falsifiable and pursued using
rigorous standards for mitigating imperfection. For post-positivists, standards dictate whether
claims are true; for social constructionists, anything and everything can be equally true.
The standards and norms that are valued in post-positivist science aim to ensure good
scientific practices and valid conclusions through testing the extent to which proposed ideas and
theories match observations of reality (Anderson, Ronning, DeVries, & Martinson, 2010;
Shadish et al., 2002). For example, multiple raters may serve to increase reliability; using mixed
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 19
methods can help to move beyond individual perceptions to demonstrate discriminant and
convergent validity (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Descombe, 2008); and systematic replication by
altering operationalizations or methods may yield increasingly robust, consistent findings
(Aronson, Ellsworth, Carlsmith, & Gonzales, 1990; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff,
2003; Shadish et al., 2002).
These practices provide the post-positivist with a metric to assess the validity of claims,
something that the social constructionist can only measure as agreement or non-agreement with
others. Overall then, post-positivists would rebut the social constructionist argument that no
scientific pursuit is without constructed standards by arguing that the process of predicting
outcomes and observing results across a wide variety of situations over time drives objectivity,
accountability, and transferability of knowledge in comparison to philosophy that accepts
everything as relative.
Rebuttal #3: The Futility of Utility
The post-positivist acknowledges the pragmatic concerns of social constructionism, but
attempts to resolve them by maintaining a pursuit of truth. Specifically, if certain minority voices
are underrepresented in empirical research, instead of abandoning truth altogether, a post-
positivist solution would be to find empirically, predictable ways to raise awareness by making a
proactive effort to be more inclusive of underrepresented voices in research; or perhaps increase
societal emphasis and encouragement of minority participation in the sciences; or perhaps
expand post-positivist research agendas into areas that are often not represented. Thus, post-
positivists might argue that pursuing objective truth from a post-positive philosophy of science
may help to resolve some of the concerns with unheard voices in post-positive science. Similarly,
post-positivism provides several ways to assess potential biases in the publication and research
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 20
process, offering solutions to the concerns raised in ways that do not require the complete
abandonment of objective truth (see Fuchs, Jenny, & Fiedler, 2012; Nosek & Bar-Anan, 2012;
Nosek & Lakens, 2014).
Overall, the crux of this rebuttal is that potential harmful consequences of post-positivism
do not merit the abandonment of the pursuit of objective truth. Rather, adjustments to the post-
positivist system can be integrated so as to bring the scientific community closer to this objective
truth. By this point, the core differences between post-positivism and social constructionism have
been discussed at length. Yet, how do psychologists genuinely practice this philosophy in
research pursuits? In the following section, a number of recommendations for doing just that will
be discussed.
Walking the Talk: Practical Implications for Psychologists
Unfortunately, many psychologists who adopt a post-positivist perspective have not
critically examined the philosophical foundation of their beliefs. That is, they have not carefully
evaluated their own biases or the socially constructed values that have been adopted in science.
They have not considered the effects of the sub-culture that they inhabit on their perceptions of
what is and what is not true. Thus, many post-positivists ironically rely on a consensus theory of
truth for their beliefs and the theories to which they ascribe (e.g. because everyone else in the
discipline believes it is true) without critically evaluating whether or not those theories are
simply socially constructed or rather based on a correspondence theory of truth.
Of course, there may be no way to approach science without the presence of at least some
social construction or constructed values. However, self-examination and self-correction is
possible so as to prevent “less than objective” from becoming “purely subjective.” Gorsuch
(1998) describes this point well when he says, “The purpose of psychological science is to
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 21
increase objectivity. This occurs when each psychologist attempts to establish clear decision
rules for conclusions before data are collected, and tests theories by those decision rules” (p.
219). As such, several implications are important to consider moving forward. We review four in
particular: taking the “post” in post-positivism more seriously; exploring normative rules that
govern emergent, dynamic phenomena; publishing each piece of the puzzle; and engaging in
philosophical debates about underlying values guiding psychology.
Taking the “Post-” in Post-Positivism More Seriously
Post-positivism holds that all human knowledge is, at best, imperfect, but this sentiment
can be taken much more seriously with regard to subjectivity, the influence of the researcher, and
the role of common method variance. In regards to subjectivity, post-positivist research might
become more transparent about subjectivity by drawing on phenomenological methodologies
that explicitly acknowledge and manage it. This might entail conversations about the power
dynamics in a study, problems/solutions in variable measurement, or adaptations that occur in
the study over time (Anastas, 2004; Fuchs et al., 2012; Gioia, Corley, Hamilton, 2012; Gringeri,
Barusch, & Cambron, 2013). Furthermore, inductive, qualitative research within a post-positivist
framework becomes a powerful way to generate future hypotheses to be explored.
In regards to the influence of the researcher, post-positivists can be more aware of their
underlying assumptions, values, and perspectives by considering why they are interested in a
given research topic as well as the values that they hold during the research process (Myers &
Jeeves, 2003). In other fields, scholars are sometimes even asked to go so far as to explicitly call
out their perspective at the outset of study (e.g., Croy, 2011). For psychologists, there should at
least be some consideration of the relevant demographic characteristics, paradigmatic beliefs,
and life events that may have influenced various aspects of the pursuit of truth.
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 22
Finally, post-positivists must also be aware of and manage common method variance,
which occurs when different constructs are assessed using the same method (e.g., a cross-
sectional survey), making them no longer orthogonal which can alter the size and direction of an
observed effect (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Advanced methods for statistically controlling for this
bias may be a significant challenge for scholars given the pressures on academics to successfully
publish manuscripts (Alvarez, Bonnet, & Kahn, 2014; Crane & Pearson, 2011; Miller, Taylor, &
Bedeian, 2011). Nonetheless, there are thoughtful approaches to mitigating the threat.
Specifically, one can use different sources for predictor/outcome variables, separate these
variables temporally, or control for common method variance statistically as a latent variable
(Podsakoff et al., 2003). In addition to each of these tactics, there is also room for development
in the ways that post-positivists conduct research, as will be discussed below.
Exploring Normative Rules that Govern Dynamic, Emergent Phenomena
The adoption of social constructionism can be a reaction against the places where post-
positivism currently struggles—in describing and predicting processes in dynamic, complex,
interdependent environments where simple cause-effect relationships do not adequately describe
the dynamics at play. This might be the case when a relationship between two constructs is
affected by a higher level of analysis; when constructs have positive or negative feedback loops
that dynamically change over time; or when the observer (e.g., the scientist) is embedded within
the system. Relativism within a social constructionist paradigm has often been proposed as the
alternative solution, noting that every observation depends on so many factors that every
phenomenon should be considered unique and non-generalizable.
Is there another option? Theory and research in post-formal thinking suggests that there is
and that the next developmental step may be to look for normative rules that govern dynamic,
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 23
interdependent, emergent processes (Basseches, 1984; Kitchener & Brenner, 1990). Four post-
formal phenomena are often noted: whole-part relationships, time, dynamic interdependent
relationships, and observer-phenomena interactions. Studying these phenomena through a post-
positivist lens doesn’t lead to relativism, but rather the identification of predictive, normative
processes in dynamic, emergent systems. For example, an engineer building a bridge considers
how each structural part relates to the whole, how they work together, how key variables can
change over time, how they interact with the larger environment, and how the engineer can
manage his or her own biases. The engineer does not conclude that there is no correct way to
build a bridge because it depends on so many underlying factors, but rather looks for higher
order principles and how they interact with one another and change over time.
Forays into the normative rules that govern dynamic systems are emerging. In the arena
of part-whole relationships, micro-, macro-, and meso-levels can play out in predictable ways
within each level or can combine at lower levels to create emergent processes at higher level
processes (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). Moreover, normative processes have been identified in
groups, such as through the ways that minority voices are suppressed and the predictive ways
that they can influence the majority (Hogg, 2010). Within organizations, microfoundations (i.e.,
individual behavioral routines; Teece, 2007) have been found to combine to influence the larger
organizational culture. For example, the proactive seeking and management of errors at the
individual level (Keith & Frese, 2008) can combine at the organizational level to form adaptive,
learning organizations predictive of subsequent organizational performance (Van Dyck, Frese,
Baer, & Sonnentag, 2005). Similarly, Walton (2014) notes several psychological interventions
that serve as seemingly small catalysts that produce significant long-term behavior change.
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 24
Several methods exist to study the patterns of change over time (Ployhart & Vandenberg,
2010) and various patterns of change within large systems (Van de Ven & Sun, 2011). Combined,
the impact of these advancements relies on a successful system for publishing and disseminating
research, as discussed below.
Publishing Each Piece of the Puzzle
One of the benefits of post-positivism for scientific progress is that its use of standards
and criteria for validity allows one to assess the robustness of findings, thereby enabling the
creation of self-correcting, working models that are based on a wealth of diverse research. In this
way, every scientific finding in a post-positivist research paradigm acts as one piece of the
puzzle of reality. However, critical pieces of this puzzle are lost when both null findings and
controversial conclusions go unpublished. In regards to null findings, academic journals tend to
reject research that does not demonstrate a p value below the traditional cutoff of .05 (Cortina &
Folger, 1998; Nosek & Lakens, 2014; Nosek. Spies, & Motyl, 2012), which bloats collective
confidence in claims and prevents an understanding of relationships or differences that are
unfounded. To overcome this, researchers can pursue journals that offer provisional acceptance
(i.e., acceptance based on design and justification of a study prior to data collection). Some
examples of these journals are Perspectives on Psychological Science
(http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/replication) and The Journal of Business
Psychology (Landis, Cortina, & Rogelberg, n.d.), among others.
In regards to publishing controversial conclusions, psychology operates in a world where
the majority of studies published confirm the hypotheses (Bones, 2012). In addition to lacking
null finding publications, this also suggests a bias in the topics that researchers choose to study.
In other words, post-positivist researchers need to seriously reconsider whether or not they are
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 25
willing to be wrong in their convictions. That is, they need to be more genuine in considering the
extent to which they pursue and publish personally discomforting research that may not align
with their values. In the same vein, one last suggestion for post-positivist researchers pertains to
the cultivation and establishment of such values, as discussed below.
Engaging Philosophical Debates about Underlying Values that Guide Psychology
More debate is needed in psychology to examine the values that drive theory, research,
and practice. This is a philosophical issue that requires logic and reasoning to resolve. For
example, is there a reasoned, logical philosophical foundation for the APA’s ethical guidelines,
or are they simply socially constructed? If the latter is the case, then recent ethics violations
regarding complicit behavior related to torture (Risen & Apuzzo, 2014) cannot be condemned
because one can argue that the acts were simply based on alternative and equally valid socially
constructed value systems.
To this end, significantly more philosophical and theoretical attention needs to focus on
defining “the good society” and how psychology can help build it. Social cognitive theory would
suggest that people are self-organizing, proactive, self-reflective, and self-regulatory agentic
beings who can picture and move toward a desired future state (Bandura, 1999); that is, the
“good society” can be defined and created. Societal good and moral behavior is more than
adaptive traits interacting with the environment (Haidt, 2007), but can be created via reason-
based, moral guidelines and norms (Bandura, 1999) similar to philosophical work to build a
theory of human rights (Sen, 2004).
With respect to values, correspondence theories such as post-positivist empiricism at best
describe what is, albeit metaphorically (Haig & Boresboom, 2012; Shadish et al., 2002);
however, they provide little guidance to what should be. Coherence theories grounded in
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 26
philosophy such as Kant’s (1785/1993) Categorical Imperative, Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics (Crisp
& Slote, 1997), or Talbott’s (2005) Moral Discovery offer a pathway for psychology to build
logically-derived, consistent philosophical principles that provide prescriptive values for the
discipline and its impact on society. The debate about the values that should drive psychology,
however, should not simply be relegated to journals devoted to ethics. Rather, the debates should
play a central role in a wide variety of psychological journals. Psychology has historically played
this role in debates about human society (e.g., James, Freud, Skinner, Rogers, etc.). It is time for
the discipline to play a central role again (such as debates about the underlying foundation for
corporate social responsibility; Garriga & Melé, 2004).
Conclusion
At the end of the day, so long as psychology hopes to be a legitimate scientific field that
provides valuable contributions to society and furthers collective knowledge, theorists,
researchers, and practitioners must be set on discovering reality as objectively as the human
condition allows. The arguments put forth in this paper are aimed at this end. The intention is not
to denigrate the unique perspective and contributions of social constructionism. Rather, the
aforementioned arguments reveal a potential cost of the lure of relativism within social
constructionism—the abandonment of the pursuit of truth and, consequently, the abandonment of
a sustainable psychological science. Therefore, it is the conclusion of this paper that post-
positivism is the logically preferable philosophy of science for the future of psychology.
Overall, the hope of this paper is for psychology to take the philosophical foundation upon which
it rests more seriously, with a specific call to (re)consider the merit of post-positivism as a means
for fueling the progress and development of valid, collective knowledge.
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 27
References
Ackerman, J. M., Shapiro, J. R., Neuberg, S. L., Kenrick, D. T., Becker, D. V., Griskevicius, V.,
Maner, J. K., & Schaller, M. (2006). They all look the same to me (unless they’re angry):
From out-group homogeneity to out-group heterogeneity. Psychological Science, 17,
836-840. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01790.x
Alevesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2010). (Post-)positivism, social constructivism, critical realism:
Three reference points in the philosophy of science. In Reflexive methodology: New
vistas for qualitative research (pp. 15-52). London, UK: SAGE Publications LTD.
Alvarez, B., Bonnet, J. L., & Kahn, M. (2014). Publish, not perish: Supporting graduate students
as aspiring authors. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 2, 1-10.
doi:10.7710/2162-3309.1141
Anastas, J. W. (2004). Quality in qualitative evaluation: Issues and possible answers. Research
on Social Work Practice, 14, 57-65. doi:10.1177/1049731503257870
Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., DeVries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2010). Extending the
Mertonian norms: Scientist’s subscription to norms of research. Journal of Higher
Education, 81, 366-393.
Aronson, E., Ellsworth, P., Carlsmith, J. M., & Gonzales, M. (1990). Methods of research in
social psychology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 3, 193-209.
Basseches, M. A. (1984). Dialectical thinking as a metasystemic form of cognitive organization.
In M. L. Commons, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond formal operations: Late
adolescent and adult cognitive development. New York, NY: Praeger.
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 28
Berezow, A. B. (2012, July 13). Why psychology isn't science. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved
from http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-
20120713
Bones, A. K. (2012). We knew the future all along: Scientific hypothesizing is much more
accurate than other forms of precognition—a satire in one part. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 7, 307-309. doi:10.1177/1745691612441216
Cacioppo, J. T., Semin, G. R., & Berntson, G. G. (2004). Realism, instrumentalism, and
scientific symbiosis: Psychological theory as a search for truth and the discovery of
solutions. American Psychologist, 59, 214-223. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.4.214
Çakir, M. (2012). Epistemological dialogue of validity: Building validity in educational and
social research. Education, 132, 664-674.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the
multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
doi:10.1037/h0046016
Cortina, J. M., & Folger, R. G. (1998). When is it acceptable to accept a null hypothesis: No way,
Jose? Organizational Research Methods, 1, 334-350. doi:10.1177/109442819813004
Crane, N. J., & Pearson, Z. (2011). Can we get a pub from this? Reflections on competition and
the pressure to publish while in graduate school. The Geographical Bulletin, 52, 77-80.
Crano, W. D., & Seyranian, V. (2009). How minorities prevail: The context/comparison-leniency
contract model. Journal of Social Issues, 35, 335-363. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
4560.2009.01603.x
Crisp, R., & Slote, M. (Eds.). (1997). Virtue ethics: Oxford readings in philosophy. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 29
Croy, N. C. (2011). Prima scriptura: An introduction to New Testament interpretation. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Descartes, R. (1983). Principles of philosophy. (V. R. Miller & R. P. Miller, Trans.). Boston, MA:
Kluwer Boston. (Original work published 1647)
Descartes, R. (1993). Meditations on first philosophy: In which the existence of God and the
distinction of the soul from the body are demonstrated. (D. A. Cress, Trans.) Indianapolis,
IN: Hackett Publishing Company. (Original work published 1641)
Descombe, M. (2008). Communities of practice: A research paradigm for the mixed methods
approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2, 270-283.
doi:10.1177/1558689808316807
Eagly, A. H., & Riger, S. (2014). Feminism and psychology: Critiques of methods and
epistemology. American Psychologist, 69, 685-702. doi:10.1037/a0037372
Feist, G. J., & Gorman, M. E. (Eds.) (2013). Handbook of the psychology of science. New York,
NY: Springer Publishing Company.
Fuchs, H. M., Jenny, M., & Fiedler, S. (2012). Psychologists are open to change, yet wary of
rules. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 639-642.
doi:10.1177/1745691612459521
Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2013). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory.
Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51-71.
Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 26, 309-320. doi:10.1037/h0034436
Gergen, K. J. (2001). Psychological science in a postmodern context. American Psychologist, 56,
803-813. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.10.803
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 30
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., Hamilton, A. L. (2012). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive
research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 15-31.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Psychology of religion. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 201-221.
Greenwald, A. G. (1975). Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis. Psychological
Bulletin, 82, 1-20. doi:10.1037/h0076157
Gringeri, C., Barusch, A., & Cambron, A. (2013). Examining foundations of qualitative research:
A review of social work dissertations, 2008-2010. Journal of Social Work Education, 49,
760-773.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging
confluence. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research
(3rd ed., pp. 191-215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Guo, S. (2015). Shaping social work science: What should quantitative researchers do? Research
on Social Work Practice, 25, 370-381. doi:10.1177/1049731514527517
Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316, 998-1002.
Haig, B. D., & Borsboom, D. (2012). Truth, science, and psychology. Theory & Psychology, 22,
272-289. doi:10.1177/0959354311430442
Hansen, J. T. (2004). Thoughts on knowing: Epistemic implications of counseling practice.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 82, 131-138. doi:10.1002/j.1556-
6678.2004.tb00294.x
Hogg, M. A. (2010). Influence and leadership. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.),
Handbook of social psychology, volume 2 (5th ed., pp. 1166-1207). Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 31
Hunt, S. D. (1994). On the rhetoric of qualitative methods: Toward historically informed
argumentation in management inquiry. Journal of Management Inquiry, 3, 221-234. doi:
10.1177/105649269433002
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and post-modernization: Cultural, economic and political
change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Jogalekar, A. (2013, August 13). Is psychology a “real” science? Does it really matter? [Blog
post]. Retrieved from http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/is-
psychology-a-e2809creale2809d-science-does-it-really-matter/
John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable
research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23, 524-532.
doi:10.1177/0956797611430953
Jost, J. T., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2002). The estrangement of social constructionism and
experimental social psychology: History of the rift and prospects for reconciliation.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 168-187.
Kant, I. (1993). Grounding for the metaphysics of morals: With on a supposed right to lie
because of philanthropic concerns. (J. W. Ellington, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett
Publishing Company. (Original work published 1785)
Keith, N., & Frese, M. (2008). Effectiveness of error management training: a meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 59-69. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.59
Kitchener, K. S., & Brenner, H. G. (1990). Wisdom and reflective judgment: Knowing in the face
of uncertainty. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and development (pp.
212-229). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 32
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing
and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 211-236.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University
of Chicago Press.
Landis, R. S., Cortina, J. M., & Rogelberg, S. G. (n.d). Retrieved from
http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/JBP+RR+Speci
al+Issue+May+5RL.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1458040-p35536793
Locke, E. A. (2002). The dead end of postmodernism. American Psychologist, 56, 458.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.57.6-7.458a
Meyers, R. G. (1975). Truth and theory in philosophy: A post-positivist view. Philosophica, 15,
21-38.
Miller, A. N., Taylor, S. G., & Bedeian, A. G. (2011). Publish or perish: Academic life as
management faculty live it. Career Development International, 16, 422-445.
Myers, D., & Jeeves, M. A. (2003). Psychology: Through the eyes of faith. San Francisco, CA:
Harper Collins.
Neuliep, J. W., & Crandall, R. (1990) Editorial bias against replication research. Journal of
Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 85-90.
Neuliep, J. W., & Crandall, R. (1993) Reviewer bias against replication research. Journal of
Social Behavior and Personality, 8, 21-29.
Nosek, B. A., & Bar-Anan, Y. (2012) Scientific utopia: I. Opening scientific communication.
Psychological Inquiry, 23, 217-243. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2012.692215
Nosek, B. A., & Lakens, D. (2014). A method to increase the credibility of published results.
Social Psychology, 45, 137-141. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000192
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 33
Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and
practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7,
615-631.
Ostrom, T. M., & Sedikides, C. (1992). Out-group homogeneity effects in natural and minimal
groups. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 536-552. doi:10.1177/1745691612459058
Pilgrim, D. (2013). In defense of inclusive realism in psychology. The Psychologist, 26, 156-159.
Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2010). Longitudinal research: The theory, design, and
analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36, 94-120. doi:10.1177/0149206309352110
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research
paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 126-136.
doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.126
Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.
Pronin, E., Gilovich, T., & Ross, L. (2004). Objectivity in the eye of the beholder: Divergent
perceptions of bias in self versus others. Psychological Review, 111, 781-799.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.3.781
Risen, J., & Apuzzo, M. (2014, December 14). C.I.A., on path to torture, chose haste over
analysis. New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/us/politics/cia-on-path-to-torture-chose-haste-over-
analysis-.html
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 34
Robins, R. W., Spranca, M. D., & Mendelsohn, G. A. (1996). The actor-observer effect revisited:
Effects of individual differences and repeated social interactions on actor and observer
attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 375-389.
Schmitt, F. F. (1995). Truth: A primer. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism,
hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189-213). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Sen, A. (2004). Elements of a theory of human rights. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 32, 315-356.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental
designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Sokal, A., & Bricmont, J. (1999). Fashionable nonsense: Postmodern intellectuals' abuse of
science. New York, NY: Picador USA.
Stroebe, W., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2012). Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-
correction in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 670-688.
doi:10.1177/1745691612460687
Talbott, W. J. (2005). What rights should be universal? Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of
(sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 1319-1350.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Sun, K. (2011). Breakdowns in implementing models of organization
change. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(3), 58-74.
doi:10.5465/AMP.2011.63886530
IMPERFECTLY KNOWN OR SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED? 35
Van Dyck, C., Frese, M., Baer, M., & Sonnentag, S. (2005). Organizational error management
culture and its impact on performance: a two-study replication. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90, 1228-1240. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1228
Walton, G. M. (2014). The new science of wise psychological interventions. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 23, 73-82. doi:10.1177/0963721413512856